Indiana Court Times 19.5

Issue 19.5 SEP/OCT 2010

The Indiana Supreme Court has made available scholarships of up to $3,000 for judicial officers who wish to attend educational seminars, conferences, meetings, or other programs not provided by the Indiana Judicial Center.

These scholarships are subject to a 20% match. For example, an individual is eli-gible for a scholarship of $1,600 if reimbursable conference expenses total $2,000.

Scholarship applications are available on the Indiana Judicial Center’s website, courts.IN.gov/center. All scholarship requests must be approved prior to conference attendance.

The 2010 annual meeting of the Indiana Judicial Conference took place in Indianapolis from September 21 to 23. The Indiana Judicial Center staff welcomed a record 538 attendees and offered a total of 12.3 continuing judicial education credit hours which included 5.5 credit hours of ethics education. The program focused on a host of topics including updates on substantive areas of case law, new legislation, new rules of proce-dure, and new technology systems. Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administration gave a big thank you to the Judicial Center staff, the many instructors, other organizers and contributors that made this event a success.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana has selected Margret G. Robb to succeed John G. Baker as the next Chief Judge of the Court. Chief Judge-Elect Robb’s three-year term of office will begin on January 1, 2011; she will be the first woman to serve as the leader of the Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Judge Robb was appointed to the Court of Appeals in July 1998 by Governor Frank O'Bannon. For 20 years prior to her appointment to the Court, Judge Robb was en-gaged in the general practice of law in Lafayette, and she served as a Chapter 11, 12 and a standing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy trustee for the Northern District of Indiana. Most recently, Judge Robb was selected as one of the 2010 recipients of the Indiana University Alumni Association President’s Award. To see Chief Judge-Elect Robb’s complete biography, visit: courts.IN.gov/appeals/bios/robb.html.

Court of Appeals Chooses Next Chief Judge

Judicial Education Scholarships Available

2010 Indiana Judicial Conference Annual Meeting Held in Indianapolis

NEWS IN BRIEF

2 SEP/OCT 2010 courttimes

CONTENTS

News in Brief ............................... 2

Supreme Court Welcomes Justice Steven David ................... 3

Three Indiana Judges Witness Sons and Daughter Sworn In as New Lawyers ............................... 5

Indiana Supreme Court Issues Rule Amendment Orders ............. 6

Roadmap for Relief from Driver License Suspension ..................... 7

District Training Sessions for Court Employees ......................... 8

No Permission Slip Needed ......... 9

Moving the Appellate Court Case Management System into the Twenty-First Century ............ 10

Bits & BytesThe Last Piece of the Puzzle: Supervision Module Completes the Odyssey Picture ................... 12

sideBarHon. Marianne Vorhees ............. 14

Maintaining the Chronological Case Summary .......................... 16

spotlightAccess to Justice Award and Public Defender Commission Appointments ............................ 17

Brenda's BailiwickThe Employee with Two Hats ..... 18

Supreme Court WelComeS JuStiCe Steven DaviDon a bright, sunny monday

with fall in the air, the Indiana Supreme Court Justices welcomed as the court’s newest member former Boone County Circuit Court Judge, Steven David. The one-hour ceremony included remarks by Governor Mitch Daniels and Chief Justice Shepard. The Governor administered the oath of office to Judge David while his wife, Catheryne Pully, held the Bible on which he placed his hand. Justice David became the 106th Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court on October 18, 2010. He was appointed by the Governor, from a list of three nominees, to replace Justice Theodore R. Boehm who retired on September 30 after 14 years of ser-vice on the Court.

Justice David had a multi-faceted career of private practice, corporate counsel experience, and stellar service as a mili-tary lawyer, in addition to his superb work as a trial judge. He graduated magna cum laude from Murray State University and earned his law degree from Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis.

He served in the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps and the Army Reserves, earning the rank of Colonel and holding top secret secu-rity clearances. In private practice he focused on personal injury, family law, civil litigation, and served as in-house counsel for Mayflower Transit, Inc.

Since becoming a judge in 1994, he tried or presided over at least sixty jury trials in civil, criminal, and military proceedings. He has testified before the

Justices applaud former Boone County Judge Steven David as he takes his place on the Supreme Court bench for the first time. Left to right: Justice Brent E. Dickson, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, newly-sworn Justice Steven David, and Justice Robert D. Rucker (the last Justice to join the Court in 1999). Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr., (not pictured) stood to the right of Justice Dickson and joined in the applause.

In 2008, Indiana Court Times published an article on Judge David, which can be found online at http://indianacourts.us/times/2008/08/defending-the-rule-of-law

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

By JamES F. maguIRE | STaFF aTToRNEy, STaTE CouRT aDmINISTRaTIoN

Indiana General Assembly on juvenile law and the United States Congress on national security issues.

In his first public remarks, Justice David acknowledged and thanked the digni-taries, friends and family assembled to watch and listen on that historic day. He then blended humor, respect for the rule of law, insight, philosophy, and lyrics from country songs to set the stage for his future service on the state’s highest court. He quoted Abe Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Toby Keith, John Mellencamp, Kenny Chesney and Lee Brice.

He thanked Governor Daniels and told him: “…I take this position in awe of the responsibility and in awe of the rule of law. I will protect and hold sacred our state and our constitution. Every day I will do my very best. I have no agenda. I owe no one anything. I will respect and honor the oath I have taken. I will serve with humility. I will work hard.”

He had words of praise for his new col-leagues, with whom he will be spend-ing a lot of time in the future. “Chief Justice Shepard, Justice Sullivan, Justice

PH

OTO

& C

OV

ER

PH

OTO

. Ann

Sch

ertz

courttimes SEP/OCT 2010 3

"I take this position in awe of the responsibility..."

Dickson, Justice Rucker, you are great Justices and great role models for all of us and I am honored to now serve with you. Your collegiality and respect for each other’s opinions; respect toward each other; respect toward our profes-sion… is a reflection of the value that you place on civility and professional-ism, qualities our profession, indeed everyone, all of us, regardless of our avocation or vocation, could benefit from and improve upon.”

Justice David made it clear that he would be involved from day one: “Life is a con-tact sport. You’ve got to play. You can’t sit on the sidelines and watch.” He cited Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. as a model for being a good listener, ready to learn: “Man’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimen-sions.” Justice David said: “I believe good listening and a good mind chang-ing once in a while is a sign of strength of character not weakness of mind.”

In a speech that drew many responsive laughs, one of the biggest came when he addressed, in his words,

“the elephant in the room …just how smart was Justice Ted Boehm.” Justice David directed his observa-tions to Justice Boehm saying: “I have heard varying descriptions from various people: “smartest per-

son I have ever known,” “smartest person in the world,” “one of the smartest people I have ever met.” It goes on and on…

Well, I found one authority who knows both of us. So let’s just settle this issue right now. Professor Su-sannah Mead, Professor of Law, IU – Indy. She was one of my profes-sors and she is still teaching at the law school. Of course she was a very young professor when I was there. Anyway, it seems she also knows you. She wrote me a letter shortly after the Governor’s announcement congratulating me.

Let me share the relevant portion…I quote ‘Ted Boehm may be the smartest person I know but you were a memorable student…and I know you will make a significant mark on the Supreme Court and the State.’”

Justice David acknowledged that maybe Justice Boehm had him on that one, but he did one-up him on another matter. Justice Boehm once met Fidel

Castro when he was in Cuba. Justice David proudly reported that he met his wife, Catheryne, in Cuba, so he “won that round.”

As an avowed lover of country music and its lyrics, he referred to a song by Kenny Chesney, “I Didn’t Get Here Alone.” He said it describes his journey to this point in his legal career:

I didn’t get here alone. That road’s just too rough and long. I might be the one the spotlight’s on But I didn’t get here alone Yeah, I know I didn’t get here alone. The crew, the band, yeah, and all you fans That stood in the rain or shine I want to thank everybody out there for the ride Cause I didn’t get here alone Ain’t traveled one mile on my own You’re why I sing my song

He thanked his father for being the “su-perman of a super family” and for other family members who travelled to be with him, especially his wife, Catheryne.

He summed up his judicial philosophy this way: “I believe in humility, respect, fairness and the Rule of Law. The Rule

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE “i believe in humility, respect, fairness and the rule of law. the rule of law always! However painful at times it can be."

PHOTOS. Ann Schertz


"I take this position in awe of the responsibility..."

of Law Always! However painful at times it can be. We must preserve the rule of law. I am neither a member of the executive branch nor the legislative branch. I respect those of you who are. I admire you. I must also trust you and your judgment. I do not believe this is about me. It is about the process and the fact that I have been selected to be a guardian of the law, not to make it. I shall protect the constitution of Indi-ana. I will work with my colleagues to improve the practice of law, to promote lawyers and the practice of law. I don’t like lawyer jokes. My obligation is heavy. My responsibility is awesome but it is not me who is important. It is the oath I have taken…it is the public service to which you have entrusted me. It is not about me.”

He quoted Abraham Lincoln: “I do the very best I know how – the very best I can; and I mean to keep on doing so until the end.” Justice David then made this promise: “I pledge to each of you and all of Indiana that I will do the very best I can.”

He then concluded his remarks with these words:

“I have an eternal optimistic real-ism. I love life! I try to look for the good in everybody. It is not hard to do and can be amazingly helpful! I am a cup half-full, not half-empty, person.

If you are still uncomfortable with my love for music lyrics, get over it… no, I mean try one more country song which captures my enthusiasm for being selected as the 106th Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court…It is Lee Brice’s “LOVE Like Crazy”. It is a great song. You can substitute the word live for love if you want to; it still is a great song. It goes like this…

Just ask him how he did it, he’ll say pull up a seat, It will only take a minute to tell you everything Be a best friend. Tell the truth and overuse I love you Go to Work. Do your Best. Don’t out-smart your common sense. Never let your prayin knees get lazy And Love like crazy I say Live this life you have to its full-est. Be true to yourself.

I will leave you with my own personal message. It consists of a core of eight words and a duty of four words. 12 simple words

Work hard. Do good. Be proud. Have fun! DO what is right!”

To see photos of these newly sworn attorneys with their proud parents, visit indianacourts.us/times

Harrison County Superior Court Judge Roger D. Davis, White

County Superior Court Judge Rob-ert B. Mrzlack, and Jennings County Circuit Court Judge Jon W. Webster watched proudly as their sons and daughter were admitted to the Indi-ana Bar on October 15, 2010.

R. Justin Davis received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Indiana Univer-sity and his Doctor of Jurisprudence from Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington.

Anthony C. Mrzlack completed his Bachelor’s Degree at Xavier Uni-versity in Cincinnati, Ohio and his Law Degree at Michigan State Uni-versity in East Lansing, Michigan. He has been selected to serve as an attorney with the US Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG).

Murielle (Ellie) S. (Webster) Bright graduated summa cum laude from Butler University with a Bachelor of Arts in Communications and from Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis. She lives in North Vernon with her husband Johnny Bright and is working for the Par-dieck Law Firm in Seymour. She is a third generation attorney follow-ing in the footsteps of her father, Judge Webster, and grandfather, Harold W. Webster.

Three Indiana Judges Witness Sons and Daughter Sworn In as New Lawyers

LEFT: Justice David's swearing-in ceremony took place in the Supreme Court courtroom and was webcast live; CENTER: Supreme Court Sheriff Gary Miller affixes Justice David's nameplate to the bench during the induction ceremony; RIGHT: Justice David and his wife Catheryne.


Professional Conduct Rule 7.1 through 7.5, governing attor-ney advertising, have been amended to bring the state’s rules more in line with the Model Rules of the American Bar Association (ABA). The most notable change is a requirement that an attor-ney may not directly solicit the victim or family of a person injured or killed in an accident or disaster within thirty days of the event. The commentary to the amendment notes: “This restriction is reasonably required by the sensitized state of the potential clients, who may be either injured or grieving over the loss of a family member, and the abuses that experience has shown exist in this type of solicitation.”

Admission and Discipline Rule 28 has been amended to pro-vide for expanded mandatory judicial education. Every state level judicial officer, which does NOT include senior judges, city or town court judges, Marion County Small Claims Court judges and part-time Commissioners and Referees, must complete 15 hours

(as opposed to the prior 12 hours) of approved courses each year and accu-mulate at least 54 hours (as opposed to the prior 36 hours) in each three year educational period. This amendment was a result of the judiciary’s ongoing strategic planning project.

As an additional part of the strategic planning project, Administrative Rule 3 has been amended to redis-trict the judiciary from fourteen (14) districts into twenty-six (26) districts. The goal of this change is to facilitate closer cooperation among courts in proximity to each other.

Another change comes in new Administrative Rule 18, which requires courts within a county to consolidate all probation departments into one probation department, except that juvenile probation departments created prior to January 1, 2010 may continue. Under this rule counties must adopt a plan to unify or consolidate their probation departments.

This amendment is aimed at reducing duplication of positions and expenses and increasing efficiencies in the delivery of probation services.

Various rules were amended to provide that the time begins to run for specified actions when a decision is noted in the Chronological Case Summary. Prior to these amendments, the events which triggered the running of various time limits were inconsistent, creating confusion and unnecessary litigation. This series of amendments make it clear that the CCS notation is the triggering event in most situations. One exception will be in the Criminal Rules, where the date of sentencing will trigger when filing a Notice of Appeal starts to run

Creditors must file with the Notice of Claim an Affidavit of Debt under amendments to Trial Rule 9.2 and Small Claims Rule 2. The affidavit is required when a creditor is collecting a debt on a delinquent account. The rule amendments include a form to use for the affidavit. This affidavit is intended to provide the court and the defendant with sufficient information to understand the origin and subsequent transfer of the debt and the breakdown of the amount being sought: if and how much of the amount is late fees, interest, etc.

Also, an Amendment to Trial Rule 55 and Small Claims Rule 10 requires that creditors must file an affidavit of non-military status when-ever a default judgment is sought. Such affidavit is required by the Service Members Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. appx. § 521. The Affidavit of Debt men-tioned above includes language that can be used for this purpose.

Small Claims Rule 8(C) has been amended to provide that a corpo-rate entity, sole proprietorship, partner-ship, LLC, or LLP that authorizes a

THE INDIANA SuPREME COuRT ISSuED A NuMBER OF ORDERS

IN AuguST, SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER AMENDINg THE INDIANA

RuLES OF COuRT. THE RuLE AMENDMENTS WILL TAkE EFFECT ON

JANuARy 1, 2011 uNLESS THE COuRTS ORDER A DIFFERENT EFFEC-

TIVE DATE. THIS ARTICLE HIgHLIgHTS THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE

OF INTEREST TO COuRTS, CLERkS AND THEIR STAFFS.

THE FuLL TExT OF THESE AND ALL OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS

ADOPTED By THE COuRT CAN BE FOuND AT

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/orders/rule-amendments/index.html

Indiana Supreme Court Issues Rule Amendment Orders

By Tom CaRuSIllo | DIRECToR oF TRIal CouRT SERvICES, STaTE CouRT aDmINISTRaTIoN


There are several bumpy paths a driver may take that lead to the suspension of

his privilege to operate a motor vehicle. There are also avenues available that a driver may take to attempt to regain that privilege. The question for many suspended drivers and the clerk and court staff that help them is: How does one get there from here?

Everyone should know how to find the right road. People complicate that task by using different names to describe the same route. Some drivers, because of their offense, will find a dead end regardless of the road traveled.

The journey for relief starts with a review of Indiana Code 9-24-15, “Issuance of Restricted Driver’s License because of Hardship.” Some people file a Petition for a Hardship License while others may call it a Petition for a Restrict-ed Driver’s License, but regard-less of the name, they are the same thing. A petition filed under IC 9-24-15 is a civil proceed-ing docketed in the name of the petitioner against the prosecuting attorney of the county. The case should be designated as MI.

The petition must be filed in the circuit or superior court where the petitioner resides. However, if the petitioner is charged with, or on probation for, a violation of an operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OVWI) offense under IC 9-30-5, or has a suspended license after being convicted of one of the offenses described in

IC 35-48-4-15(a) or suspended in accord with IC 9-30-4-6(b)(3), the petition may only be filed in the circuit or superior court where the petitioner’s case is pending or the petitioner was convicted. The petitioner is responsible for court costs, including fees, under IC 9-24-15-5(e). The regular court costs (including fees) for a civil case should be assessed since the statute does not make any specific reference as to costs.

A driver may petition for judi-cial review when notified by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles of a possible license suspension as a Habitual Violator (IC 9-30-10-6). A petitioner should file a Verified Petition for Judicial Review of a Habitual Violator Suspension in the circuit or superior court where the petitioner resides. The peti-tioner must serve a summons and a copy of the petition to both the county prosecuting attorney and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. A Petition for Judicial Review is a civil action designated as an MI case. The petitioner at the time of filing pays court costs in an amount equal to the costs (including fees) assessed in enforcement of infrac-tions (IC 9-30-10-7 f). However, if the court reinstates the person’s driving privileges under IC 9-30-10-8, the person is entitled to a refund of all costs.

This brief map will not take one all the way to the destination, but hopefully it will help staff and peti-tioners find the right road to begin the journey.

designated full-time employee to appear in small claims cases, not only accepts the binding nature of the employee’s acts, the liability of the entity for costs and assessments levied by a court but also waives any present or future claims in any forum for damages in excess of $1,500 arising from the facts alleged in the notice of claim.

Trial Rule 23 has been amended to provide for the distribution of residual funds in class action cases. If the class action settlement order does not result in the distribution of all settlement funds, and if the order does not other-wise distribute residual funds, then not less than 25% of the residual shall be distributed to the Indiana Bar Founda-tion to support activities of the Indiana Pro Bono Commission.

Criminal Rule 13 has been amend-ed to clarify that a person appointed to serve as a special judge in a criminal case must accept jurisdiction unless disqualified pursuant to the Code of Judicial Conduct, ineligible for service, or excused by the Supreme Court.

Appellate Rule 18 and Trial Rule 62 have been amended to broaden appeal bonds. Under these amendments, in addition to a bond or irrevocable letter of credit, a court may now accept any other approved form of security.

Administrative Rule 5, concern-ing Senior Judges, has been amended to provide that senior judges may submit time without accumulating partial days and to clarify Court policy regarding se-nior judges who serve as ADR neutrals. Under the amended rule, if a senior judge has served as an ADR neutral within the previous year for a lawyer, lawyer’s firm, or party to the case, the senior judge must disclose that fact and recuse from the case, unless the parties agree on the record to his/her contin-ued service.

By JamES R. WalKER DIRECToR oF TRIal CouRT maNagEmENT, STaTE CouRT aDmINISTRaTIoN


During the fiscal year 2009-10, the Indi-ana Supreme Court offered educational programs to over 1000 judicial branch personnel, including trial court staff, Supreme Court agency employees, elect-ed Clerks and clerk staff. Four types of delivery methods were employed to provide training: state-wide conferences, district/county-wide seminars, in-house programs and internet webinar. This article will focus on two of those edu-cational methods—district training and web-based training.

District/County Training for Trial Court and Clerk StaffOver three hundred twenty-seven (327) court and clerk staff members were trained on the county or district level during 2009-10. Training was conduct-ed in five districts--District 1 with Lake County hosting; District 2, St. Joseph (one session in 2009 and one in 2010); District 4, Tippecanoe; and District 13, Vanderburgh. Allen and Elkhart Coun-ties were the sites of individual county training. Topics included: customer service, jury management, ethics, court records, and quarterly statistical reports.

There are a number of reasons why it has been very beneficial to train court and clerk staff in the same sessions. Through joint education participants were able to identify ways in which delivery of court/clerk services could be coordinated more effectively as well as achieving greater communication between offices. District training also

allowed attendees to learn about the practices utilized by their colleagues from other counties. A sense of cama-raderie grew as they discovered that oth-ers experience similar challenges. One goal of training at the district/county level is to develop local resources for conducting future educational sessions.

What steps does a district need to take to set up training for court/clerk staff? First, judges must decide to have train-ing on the district level. In the past, the decision to host training has been the result of a judge or small group of judges who saw a particular training need. In the future, districts may deter-mine the need for court staff training in a variety of ways, including routine training on a rotating basis among the constituent counties.

When the decision is made to have district training, a judge should contact the Indiana Judicial Center to discuss types of training, appropriate topics, possible dates and potential audience. The Judicial Center will coordinate the training if there is a decision by the district and Center to go forward. Pri-ority will be given to those districts that request training for the most geographi-cal diversity.

The host is responsible for securing an appropriate facility with sufficient seat-ing, sound equipment, LCD projector and screen. The district sends the invi-tations and is responsible for registering attendees, maintaining a list of the total number persons at the training, and breaking down the attendees by county

and employer. That information will be sent to the Judicial Center.

The Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration generally pro-vides the faculty while the Judicial Cen-ter coordinates the efforts and produces handout materials for attendees.

Judges and other supervisors are en-couraged to participate in local educa-tion as they can help lead the discussion and give their staff guidance on discre-tionary issues. Ideally, a district training session is just the starting point for fur-ther discussions in each court, among courts within the county, and ultimately with participation by the courts of the district as a whole.

Web-Based TrainingDue to geographical distances and the number of trial court employees, face-to-face education is not always possible. The Judicial Center is exploring ways to use technology, especially the internet, to broaden the delivery of education to court staff. As part of that effort, a webinar on using the Jury Toolbox was offered to all Indiana courts by the Na-tional Center for State Courts in May of 2010. The Judicial Center assisted by sending the invitations and provid-ing other logistical support. Court and clerk personnel from thirteen counties participated in the webinar as well as Judicial Center staff members. We hope to expand our efforts in this area. We would appreciate your input as to types of programming that you feel would most greatly benefit court staff.

If you would like to have training in your district, or share your thoughts on training programs, please contact Barbara Arnold Harcourt, Indiana Judicial Center, (317) 234-5996 or [email protected].

District Training Sessions for Court Employees:FInd Out HOw YOu CAn Set up A trAInIng prOgrAm In YOur dIStrICt

By HoN. BaRBaRa aRNolD HaRCouRT | SENIoR JuDgE aND JuDICIal STaFF aTToRNEy, INDIaNa JuDICIal CENTER


A ll travelers know the value of experiencing a new culture and a different way of life—even for

a brief moment. Getting away can pro-vide perspective. It’s the reason Tippe-canoe Superior Court IV Judge Greg Donat arranges for his staff to take a trip to another county court a few times a year. “It broadens our perspective,” explained Judge Donat. It does won-ders in terms of morale, it allows for job training, and it reaffirms our commit-ment to the mission of the courts.”

Judge Donat started the court “field trips” about ten years ago after attend-ing a training offered by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. He found it helpful and was disappointed when the training was discontinued. He decided he could arrange a similar program that would allow his staff to learn how other courts do business.

“A few months a year there is a fifth Wednesday on the calendar. That is a good scheduling opportunity for us to catch-up with work or to take a trip to see another court,” he said. Judge Do-nat tries to arrange the trip with a high volume court in a county that shares Tippecanoe County demographics.

The boost in morale is important to Judge Donat. “ I’ve gone with the staff and sometimes they go without me,” he explained. “When you work side-by-side with someone every day, little irrita-tions can become an issue. By spending a day talking, observing another court and having lunch together those irrita-tions can seem insignificant and get people into a better frame of mind.”

Staff members agree with the logic. The common “Are we there yet?” senti-ment doesn’t plague the Superior Court

IV road trips. Chief Reporter Debbie Tague says the trips allow her to feel refreshed. “You can get into a rut and just need a new perspective. The trips allow us to meet new people that we have something in common with and allow us to exchange ideas.”

The exchange of ideas is one of the most significant reasons Judge Donat feels the trips are valuable. “It is good to see how other courts do business. When you see their process up-close you may realize it is a way to streamline things.” A recent trip to Michigan City showed Tague the efficiency of a check-in kiosk. “Their probation office had a kiosk where clients could sign-in outside the hall. That information was then transmitted to the staff. That would be a nice system to implement in the future,” she noted.

Judge Donat is pleased when staff brings back an idea or reevaluates how a job is being done. “If there is a Supreme Court rule on something, we

follow that rule. But there is a lot of discretion in what we do. It can be a problem if you approach business as ‘we were trained that way,’ and assume it always has to be done that way.”

La Porte Superior Court IV Magistrate Greta Friedman welcomed Judge Do-nat’s staff to her courtroom for a recent trip. Friedman believes her staff also benefited from the exchange. “They had a sense of relief when they heard a problem they have is also happen-ing 100 miles away. The staff can talk about how to handle it and about what works best. They really enjoyed that.”

Some of the discussion centered on the high number of self-represented litigants. As Chairman of the Commit-tee on Self-Represented Litigants, Judge Donat is especially in tune with the issues surrounding self-representation. “The first person you see when you come to the courthouse is a clerk. It is often the newest staff member who has the most difficult job at the desk. If you’re on the front desk doing a job you have not been trained to do it can be a horrible situation.”

Magistrate Friedman agrees it is crucial to give staff the resources to “help them cope with what can be exasperating situ-ations with the public.” She said, “The staff has a great deal of knowledge from the school of hard knocks. They get difficult questions from people when they are at their very worst.” Friedman believes ongoing training is impor-tant to ensure staff can handle trying encounters. “Most people’s natural inclination is to help. However, there

No Permission Slip NeededBy KaTHRyN DolaN | PuBlIC INFoRmaTIoN oFFICER, INDIaNa SuPREmE CouRT

CONTINUED ON PAGE 19

“It is good to see how other courts do business. When you see their process up-close you may realize it is a way to streamline things.”


INFORMATION TECHNOLOgy OFFERS ExCITINg OPPORTuNITIES FOR COuRTS TO EN-

HANCE STAFF PRODuCTIVITy WHILE ExPANDINg THE SERVICES OFFERED TO THEIR

CONSTITuENTS. INDIANA’S APPELLATE COuRTS ARE ExPLORINg WAyS TO IMPROVE

THE APPELLATE PROCESS By uPDATINg THE RELATED TECHNOLOgy.

Moving the Appellate CourtCase Management Systeminto the Twenty-First Century

By RoBERT RaTH, ESq. | DIRECToR oF aPPEllaTE CouRT TECHNology, STaTE CouRT aDmINISTRaTIoN

PHOTO. Tom Schmucker10 SEP/OCT 2010 courttimes

T he current Appellate Case Management System has been in-place since the mid-1980s. If the

system could breathe, it would be old enough to drive, vote, and buy a bottle of wine. While the software has served the courts well for over two decades, the technology is showing its age and limits the courts’ ability to deliver enhanced services to their constituents.

A project team comprised of staff from the appellate courts and clerk’s office and the Division of State Court Admin-istration have taken the first steps toward procuring and implementing a twenty-first century appellate court case manage-ment system. This journey is much like that taken by our trial courts and the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) staff in recent years.

Over several months, the project team documented the internal processes and data flows of our current appellate pro-cess. The staffs of twenty-one appellate justices and judges, the administrators of the three appellate courts, and the staff of the Clerk’s Office contributed information and suggestions. The proj-ect team identified the requirements that any new system must satisfy, along with additional features that would be nice to have. Required features include:

document management 1 capabilities;

integrated query and reporting 2 tools;

enhanced public access over 3 the Internet; and

support for electronic filing 4 of appellate documents by attorneys, trial courts, and county clerks.

The effort led to the publication of a Public Notice of Contracting Op-portunity (PNCO) inviting vendors to propose the software, hardware, and services necessary to implement a new case management system for Indiana’s Appellate Courts.

The primary goals of this project are to:

increase productivity of ��Appellate Court staffs by providing an efficient means of entering data in the system in a manner optimized for the business processes;

ensure the quality of ��Appellate Court case data by eliminating redundant data entry and providing real-time data validation;

improve each court ��administrator’s ability to manage performance with standard business intelligence (BI) tools for reporting and statistical analysis;

ensure adequate security ��across multiple dimensions, including by:

chambers��panel of judges��court or clerk’s office��nature of data (public or ��private);

provide access to Appellate ��Court case information to the general public, other state agencies, and the trial courts;

provide to the Appellate Court ��parties and their counsel the ability to file briefs and motions electronically with the Clerk’s Office and enter relevant case information;

provide to trial court ��clerks, reporters, and staff, and the staffs of various administrative agencies, the ability to file transcripts and other court and administrative records electronically with the Clerk’s Office; and

improve the operation of the ��Appellate Courts and Clerk’s Office through workflow-enabled management of case-related documents.

Eight vendors submitted proposals for consideration: Amicus Group, Aptitude Solutions, CaseLoad Software, L-T Court Tech, New Dawn Technologies, Sustain Technologies, TriVir LLC, and Tyler Technologies. Two vendors recommend custom-developed software, while six propose the implementation of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) ap-plications.

Among the COTS vendors, Tyler Tech-nologies proposes adding support for appeals to its Odyssey case management system being deployed to the trial courts by JTAC. As of September 25, Odys-sey has been implemented in sixty-two courts throughout Indiana, represent-ing 26% of the State’s annual caseload.

Incorporating appeals into Odyssey is not a trivial concept, due to the differ-ences between the flow of a trial case compared to an appeal and the corre-sponding system requirements that each case type presents. However, the idea of using a single system for all courts in Indiana has a certain appeal.

Regardless of whether Indiana becomes the first state to deploy Odyssey in an appellate court or whether a different application is selected, the project team will consider opportunities to simplify the transmission of cases from trial courts to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts.

The project team is forging through the nearly 2,000 pages submitted, to evaluate the merits of each proposal. In the coming months, the list of vendors will be whittled down, and two or three finalists will be invited to make a Best and Final Offer. A final decision will be made in the spring of 2011, if sufficient funding is approved by the Indiana General Assembly during the upcoming legislative session.


PH

OTO

. Ana

toly

Tip

lyas

hin

After several months of development and configuration, the Harrison County Juvenile Pro-bation Department deployed the Odyssey Supervision

product center as a pilot project in late April 2010. Staff from the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC), the Indiana Judicial Center, and professional consultants from within the field of probation and community corrections all participated in the project to create a supervision module customized to the needs of Indiana courts.

The Supervision Product Center is the third of three product centers planned for the Odyssey case management system (CMS) which is being deployed throughout Indiana’s courts. The initial deployment of Odyssey to Indiana courts in December, 2007 included the Case Manager and Financial Manager product centers. The Supervision product center has been custom-built by experts from Indiana and Tyler Tech-nologies, and is the first of its kind for any state using Odyssey.

What is Odyssey Supervision?Odyssey Supervision is a web-based computer application designed for use by probation departments and other supervision programs and will assist users in managing their caseloads. The applica-tion is a separate product center within Odyssey (which is cur-rently being used in 62 courts throughout Indiana). Because supervision data is pulled from existing data in the CMS, any court already using Odyssey can request the use of Supervi-sion for their Probation Department, Community Correc-tions Department, Court Alcohol and Drug Program, Drug Court Program, Mental Health Court Program, and other Problem-Solving Court Programs.

Odyssey Supervision’s key features allow a community supervi-sion program to create a caseload of clients, assess and collect program fees, create case contact notes, input conditions of supervision, print documents and forms, record compliance with terms of supervision, store drug testing results, and monitor compliance with intervention services. Although

case specific information is classified as confidential, informa-tion pertaining to a party in a case is stored and accessible by not only the courts and clerks who use Odyssey, but also other users of Odyssey Supervision throughout the state.

Why is it needed?Supervision and community corrections programs through-out the state are generally funded at the local level, and have traditionally been overlooked—for various reasons—with regard to allocations for technology spending. Because Odyssey is a people-based system, it makes perfect sense that the system used to manage a defendant’s case and any related financial

obligations (i.e., fees and fines) should also manage that defendant’s probation record. With the development of Odyssey Supervi-sion, and with funding provided by JTAC, Probation Departments and other programs across the state now have the ability to utilize computer software that will assist them in their daily activities and increase case manage-ment efficiencies, without imposing on their ever-decreasing annual budget.

Not only does JTAC provide the software at no cost to the city or county, but JTAC also

provides the training and ongoing support and assistance to users of Odyssey Supervision through its help desk. Further, JTAC has initiated an in-house project that will link the stored data within Odyssey Supervision to the INcite application used by probation departments to report quarterly statistics to the Division of State Court Administration.

Milestones The first deployment of Odyssey Supervision was completed last April with the help of Harrison County Adult Probation staff. A new deployment has occurred every month since that time. To date, the probation-based users of Odyssey Supervi-sion include the Harrison County Adult and Juvenile Proba-tion Departments, Warren County Probation Department, DeKalb County Probation Department, and Floyd Superior 2 Probation Department. In August, Odyssey Supervision was

The Last Piece of the Puzzle:SuperviSion module completeS the odySSey picture

By lISa THomPSoN | PRoBaTIoN SuBJECT maTTER ExPERT, STaTE CouRT aDmINISTRaTIoN / JTaC


BITS & BYTES

Case ManagerFinancia

l Man

ager

Supervision

launched in the Floyd County Professional Services Office, a free-standing Court Alcohol and Drug Program. In addition to the standard features available for Odyssey Supervision, users with the Floyd County Professional Services Office are able to tabulate clinical assessments and monitor referrals to outside providers. Future releases of Odyssey Supervision will provide Court Alcohol and Drug Programs and Drug Court Programs the ability to schedule treatment or counseling ses-sions and monitor clients’ attendance.

Looking forwardDue to configuration requirements, the timetable for deploy-ment of Odyssey Supervision is based on a monthly sched-ule. The Supervision team at JTAC is committed to creating a positive ongoing relationship with its users, so having a complete understanding of an organization’s business proce-dures and users’ needs are important first steps to a successful deployment. Once configuration is complete, the JTAC train-ing team will devote a few days of on-site training and software demonstration. Then in the weeks and months following deployment, continued application support is provided to users as needed.

If you are interested in more information about the Odyssey Supervision project, please contact Lisa Thompson at JTAC at 317-234-6586 or [email protected].

Indiana Courts on YouTubeMembers of the press, the public and the legal community have watched videos on the indiana courts youtube channel over 120,000 times in the two years the channel has been up-and-running.

a variety of informational videos, self-help guides, and public service announcements are available on the channel, including videos about:

Mortgage foreclosure settlement •conferences

Representing yourself in court•

A case study and overview •of Indiana's statewide case management system

The benefits of Indiana's •protection order registry

Jury orientation•

The Indiana CLEO program•

and more...•

youtube.com/incourts


THIS IS THE ELEVENTH OF OuR COuRT TIMES ARTICLES THAT HIgHLIgHT uP CLOSE AND PERSONAL A MEMBER OF THE

INDIANA JuDICIARy. DELAWARE COuNTy CIRCuIT COuRT #1 JuDgE MARIANNE L. VORHEES IS OuR JuDgE FEATuRED IN

THIS ISSuE. SHE SERVED AS MASTER COMMISSIONER FOR THE DELAWARE CIRCuIT COuRT FROM 1993 TO 2002. gOVERNOR

FRANk O’BANNON APPOINTED JuDgE VORHEES TO THE BENCH IN NOVEMBER 2002. SHE WAS ELECTED By POPuLAR VOTE

IN 2004 AND RE-ELECTED WITHOuT OPPOSITION IN NOVEMBER TO ANOTHER 6 yEAR TERM. SHE gRADuATED FROM BALL

STATE uNIVERSITy IN 1980, AND RECEIVED HER DOCTOR OF JuRISPRuDENCE FROM THE uNIVERSITy OF NOTRE DAME IN

1983. SHE ATTENDED THE INDIANA gRADuATE PROgRAM FOR JuDgES IN 2007. JuDgE VORHEES WAS A MEMBER OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, STATE BOARD OF LAW ExAMINERS, FROM 1996 TO 2006. SHE CuRRENTLy SERVES AS A MEMBER

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, JuDICIAL CONFERENCE OF INDIANA, AND HAS HELD THIS POSITION SINCE 2006.

What do you like most and least about being a trial court judge?

I like helping people solve problems. Almost everyone we see is in a difficult situation, and I like to resolve the situation as efficiently as possible, to help them along to the next step in their lives. What I like least is the fact that we have to run in a partisan election. I wish we could run in a non-partisan manner.

What Was your major at ball state university and Why did you decide to study laW?

I was a teaching major at Ball State, and I thought I would become a teacher and a coach. I decided during my junior year that I would like to try law school. I thought a career in law would bring me something different every day. My legal career has certainly met those expectations!

What Would you do if you Were not a judge?

My dream would be to write novels. In reality, I would prob-ably teach.

Who are the people you most admire?

My parents. They are great people, and they are so respected in our community. I can’t imagine having better role models than my mother and father.

What are your hobbies or favorite leisure activities, and hoW did you first get involved?

Reading and exercising. I have always been involved in sports. My dad was a coach, and I followed him around to all his practices and games. At Ball State, I played on the varsity fast pitch softball team for four years. I was in the first class of women student-athletes to receive athletic scholar-ships, and our team won two state championships. In 1977, my slow pitch team, Munciana, finished third in the nation, and I was named to the All-America team. I played softball through the 2007 summer, when I retired for good. Now I am trying tennis as a competitive activity.

What are your favorite books, and have you read any recently, or are reading noW, that you Would recommend?

I always have two or three books going at the same time. Right now my obsession is Norwegian author Jo Nesbo, who writes a series about a detective named Harry Hole. Start with The Redbreast and read them in order.

Where did you groW up and hoW Would you describe your childhood?

I grew up in Muncie as the oldest of five children. My dad was a teacher and coach, and my mother was a stay-at-home mom. We lived one block from the local library, which made me the reader I am today. I left Muncie for law school and a clerkship in Cincinnati but came back because it’s a great place to live and raise a family.

Hon. Marianne L. VorheesBy JamES F. maguIRE | STaFF aTToRNEy, STaTE CouRT aDmINISTRaTIoNSIdEBar


do you have a favorite quote(s)?

I don’t have a favorite quote, but I would like to abolish the phrase, “You only get one bite of the apple.” I don’t agree; if you take one bite of an apple at my house, I would prefer that you finish the whole thing.

Where is your favorite vacation spot?

Anywhere that I can read books. My idea of a great vacation is sitting outside and reading a book per day.

do you have a favorite meal, recipe, and restaurant?

When my husband and our children want me to fix one of their favorite meals, they usually ask for steak on the grill and fried potatoes. As far as local restaurants are concerned, I rec-ommend Vera Mae’s Bistro in downtown Muncie. It’s worth the drive.


Indiana courts must maintain certain records. The clerk of the court is re-sponsible for the maintenance and up-keep of the chronological case summary (CCS) under Trial Rule 77(B). The clerk must maintain a sequential record of the judicial events in every proceed-ing. The record includes the caption of the case, case number, and the names, addresses, telephone numbers of attor-neys and self-represented individuals.

The clerk also records the assessment of fees and charges. The clerk must record the date of each judicial event and briefly define any documents, orders, rulings, or judgments filed or entered in the case. The clerk must also make an entry if and when notice of judg-ments and orders has been sent to the parties. The CCS must also be a record of the date of the entry of orders, rul-ings and judgments in the record of judgments and orders (RJO), the entry of judgments in the judgment docket, and whether the case file is pending or decided.

The CCS is the official record of the trial court and must be maintained apart from other records of the court and be organized by case number. Years of local customs and practices, often driven by local personalities and circum-stances, has resulted in these required recordkeeping functions being per-formed by different offices, depending

on the time and place. It is important to keep in mind that both the judge and clerk have responsibility for court records under Administrative Rule 10 which states, among other things, that:

(A) Court Responsiblities. Each judge is administratively responsible for the integrity of the judicial records of the court and must ensure that measures and procedures are employed to protect such records from mutilation, false en-try, theft, alienation, and any unauthor-ized alteration, addition, deletion, or replacement of items or data elements.

(B) Clerk Responsibilities. Each Clerk is responsible for the maintenance of court records in a manner consistent with the directives of the Supreme Court of Indiana, judge of court, and other pertinent authority. …

Because the chronological case sum-mary is one of the court’s most basic management tools, the guiding prin-ciples that determine how the CCS is written and maintained are important. Four of these principles are particularly important.

The first guiding principle for writ-ing the CCS is that entries should be brief. Frequently, the CCS is written with too much detail and description rather than a summary of the court order. Trial Rule 77(B) dictates that the

notation of judicial events on the CCS must “briefly define” any documents, orders, rulings, or judgments filed or entered in the case. While a CCS entry should summarize an event accurately, it should not include so much detail that the complete order is described in the entry. An entry on the CCS that reads “Motion granted” would not be descriptive or detailed enough. A more appropriate entry would read: “Motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Smith on May 15, 2010 granted on July 1, 2010.”

Second, the CCS should be accurate and chronological. The CCS is a “sequential record” of events and the chronology of developments in the case is critical. Suppose that the Clerk’s office receives on April 5th a court order that was signed and file-stamped by the trial judge on April 2nd. The CCS should indicate that the entry is made on April 5th for an order that was signed, dated, and file-stamped on April 2nd. Given these facts, the entry should never state that it is being made on the 2nd of April when it was in fact received by the Clerk’s office on the 5th of April. If it did, the chronological se-quence of events in the case would not be preserved and the entry would be inaccurate. This requirement becomes crucial under the series of rule amend-ments recently adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court, effective January 1,

maintaining tHe Chronological Case Summary

By Doyal mClEmoRE | STaFF aTToRNEy, STaTE CouRT aDmINISTRaTIoN

The CCS is one of the court’s most valuable management tools and an important administrative component of Trial Rule 77. 16 SEP/OCT 2010 courttimes

2011, and specifying that notation on the CCS is the key triggering event for the start of the running of time limits, such as the time for appeal. The Clerk must endeavor to make CCS entries of filed documents and orders on the day that they are received so that the entries will always remain accurate and to engender public confidence in the court’s records.

Third, entries on the CCS should never be backdated. In the above example, suppose someone obtained a certified copy of the CCS on April 4th, when that copy showed no activity in the case for several weeks. If the Clerk’s office later backdates a CCS entry of the order to match the file-stamped date of April 2nd, even though it was not received for entry on the CCS until April 5th, the certified copy obtained on April 4th would be inaccurate. The CCS should state that the entry is being made on April 5th for an order that was signed, dated, and file-stamped on April 2nd. The certified copy of the CCS obtained on April 4th has no backdat-ing, and bolsters public confidence in certified copies of records obtained from the court.

Finally, an entry on the CCS may only be amended by a corrective entry and should never itself be corrected or deleted. It is crucial that the record of proceedings in a case is consistent and accurate, particularly when some courts, with the approval of the Division of State Court Administration, are posting their CCS entries on the Internet. The integrity and chronology of events on the CCS would be called into question if it was arbitrarily subject to amend-ment or deletion.

The CCS is one of the court’s most valuable management tools and an important administrative component of Trial Rule 77. These guiding principles, when observed, can contribute to improving the value of the CCS to both the courts and the general public.

INDIaNa JuDgE gREgoRy J. DoNaT RECEIvES aCCESS To JuSTICE aWaRD

Judge Gregory J. Donat of the Tippecanoe Superior Court in Lafayette, Indiana was named the 2010 recipient of the American Judicature Society’s kathleen M. Sampson Access to Justice Award. The award recognizes Judge Donat’s leadership in efforts to improve access to justice for all people. He received the award at the 2010 Annual Meet-ing of the Indiana Judicial Conference in Indianapolis.

Monica Fennell, Executive Director of the Indiana Pro Bono Commission, nominated Donat for the award, citing his work “to ensure that pro bono and pro se efforts are inte-grated and that all stakeholders in the access to justice community work together to bet-ter provide legal help for the poor.” Fennell noted that “he ensures that victims’ rights and self-represented litigant issues are not overlooked whenever he is involved.” Lilia Judson, Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administration, who wrote in support of Judge Donat’s nomination, said “Judge Donat's steadfast commitment to this cause has been a galvanizing factor in the development of services and programs for pro se litigants in Indiana.”

Jane Seigel, Executive Director of the Indiana Judicial Center, remarked that “Judge Donat has been a leader in the State of Indiana as he has creatively tried to develop resources for self-represented litigants–ensuring them their day in court.”

In addition to his work in Indiana, Donat has led and contributed to national projects to enhance access to justice through specialized courts. Anne Seymour, National Crime Vic-tim Advocate, praised Donat’s work to “provide quality services to victims and survivors of crime” through domestic violence courts and drug courts, noting that “whenever we need a judge who truly sees the importance of balancing the rights of those accused and convicted of crimes, with the [rights] of victims of such crimes, we call upon Judge Donat for his wisdom, expertise and fairness.”

The kathleen M. Sampson Access to Justice Award is named after the long-time AJS Se-nior Program Associate and pioneer in the field of improving court services for self-repre-sented litigants. The award is given to individuals or organizations that make extraordinary contributions to ensuring access to justice for all.

Founded in 1913, the American Judicature Society’s mission is to secure and promote an independent and qualified judiciary and a fair system of justice. AJS carries out its mission through empirical research, publications, and educational programs focusing on access to justice, criminal justice system reforms, judicial selection, judicial ethics, the jury, judicial independence, and public understanding of the justice system. For more informa-tion, visit www.ajs.org.

TWo TRIal CouRT JuDgES aPPoINTED To INDIaNa PuBlIC DEFENDER CommISSIoN

Monroe County Circuit Court Judge Mary Ellen Diekhoff and Jasper County Superior Court Judge James R. Ahler have been appointed to the Indiana Public Defender Commission by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

“Judge Diekhoff and Judge Ahler will be terrific additions to the Public Defender Commis-sion. The Commission provides crucial financial assistance to Indiana courts and it will benefit from the leadership of these two splendid trial judges,” Chief Justice Shepard said.

Judge Mary Ellen Diekhoff was appointed to fill a position that became available when Rebecca McClure was appointed to the bench in Boone County. Judge Diekhoff was elected to the Monroe Circuit Court in 2005. Previously, she served as a Deputy Pros-ecuting Attorney from 1989 to 2004.

Judge James R. Ahler is filling the position vacated by Bettye Lou Jerrel. Mrs. Jerrel resigned this year after serving as a member of the Indiana Public Defender Commis-sion since November 1993. Judge Ahler was appointed to the Jasper Superior Court in November 2007.


SPOTLIGHT

The Uniformed Services Employ-ment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 USC § 4301

et seq., was enacted in 1994 to protect those who enlist to meet the needs of a voluntary military. USERRA was writ-ten to encourage non-career service in the armed forces, to minimize disrup-tion to the lives of persons performing service, and to prohibit discrimination against persons because of their ser-

vice. It does this by establishing the right of every enlistee to return to the employee’s current civilian job after the enlistee’s active military duty ends.

USERRA applies to every employer, including Indiana courts. Any person, institution, organization, or other entity that pays salary or wages for work must comply with USERRA. 38 USC § 4303(3) specifically includes

state, federal and governmental agen-cies. Any employee who leaves civilian employment because of a call to active duty in the armed forces is entitled to re-employment in the civilian job at the end of active duty service if minimal requirements are met. Attending a ser-vice academy is considered active duty service under USERRA. The require-ments to maintain a right to the former civilian job are that:

the employee, or an appropriate 1 officer of the uniformed services on behalf of the employee, give notice to the employer of the ac-tive military duty;

the total length of military duty 2 away from the civilian employ-ment does not exceed five years;

the employee is honorably dis-3 charged or in honorable status at the end of active duty, and

after active duty ends, the em-4 ployee makes a timely request for reemployment. 38 uSC § 4312.

The initial notice by the employee that the employee has been called to duty may be verbal or written. In fact, it can consist of nothing more than a casual remark that the employee is leaving the job because the employee was called to active duty. USERRA encourages employees to give notice as soon as pos-sible, but the law does not require any specific amount of notice. The Depart-ment of Defense does recommend to servicepersons that they give thirty days notice. If there is an immediate call to duty that precludes notice, notice is not required. The employer does have the

THE COuRT FAMILy HAS BEEN PROuD TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES IN

ACTIVE MILITARy SERVICE FOR OuR COuNTRy THROugH THE WARS

AND MILITARy OPERATIONS THAT HAVE uNFOLDED IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

THE NEWEST JuSTICE OF THE SuPREME COuRT, STEVEN DAVID, HAD A

LONg AND HIgHLy HONORED MILITARy CAREER WITH ExEMPLARy SER-

VICE AS THE CHIEF PuBLIC DEFENDER AT guANTANAMO BAy. JuDgE

MARILyN MOORES OF MARION COuNTy IS CuRRENTLy ON ACTIVE DuTy

FOR A yEAR IN AFgHANISTAN. SEVERAL OTHER JuDgES HAVE ALSO

SERVED IN THE ARMED SERVICES WHILE ON THE BENCH.

The Employee With Two Hats

By BRENDa F. RoDEHEFFER DIRECToR oF oFFICE aND EmPloymENT laW SERvICES, STaTE CouRT aDmINISTRaTIoN

BrEnda'S BaILIwIck

18 SEP/OCT 2010 courttimes PHOTO. Paul Moore

are limits to that and if you are not trained well, you can go too far and end up in a difficult situation for everybody. It’s valuable to know the limits and to know legally what staff can and cannot do.” Talking about those scenarios is a good training method.

The exchange was so valuable Mag-istrate Friedman is planning to take her La Porte staff to Tippecanoe County. “Every time I go to a dif-ferent court and see how a different judge approaches a situation it is worthwhile. Occasionally I find something that rubs me the wrong way and I walk away saying ‘I would never do that.’ But usually I find something that I will add to my approach.” Friedman is confident her staff will take away valuable ex-periences as well. “Why re-invent the wheel?”

Judge Donat offers the follow sug-gestions to other courts consider-ing a similar exchange. First, he says you will always feel too busy to take the trip. “We’re a busy court and we still do it. It goes on the calendar and it is no worse than taking a snow day. You just have to plan it out.” Second, he recommends finding a court with a similar caseload. “While there is value is seeing an entirely different operation, I think it is more helpful to get to know judges and staff with a similar caseload.” Finally, he says don’t get wrapped-up in developing a highly organized agenda and only visiting on the perfect day. “Just go to see their operation. Maybe it is a busy day, maybe it’s not. Either way you will take something new from the experience.”

right to ask for a copy of the military order, which may be provided before or after the employee leaves.

When the employee leaves the civilian job, the employee is not required to inform the employer to hold the civil-ian job for the employee. 20 C.F.R. § 1002.88 provides:

. . . When the employee leaves the employment position to be-gin a period of service, he or she is not required to tell the civilian employer that he or she intends to seek reemployment after completing uniformed ser-vice. Even if the employee tells the employer before entering or completing uniformed ser-vice that he or she does not intend to seek reemployment after completing the uniformed service, the employee does not forfeit the right to reemploy-ment after completing service. The employee is not required to decide in advance of leaving the civilian employment posi-tion whether he or she will seek reemployment after completing uniformed service.

The employee can formally resign or retire and still enforce a return to civil-ian employment. When the active duty ends, the employee’s only obligation is to make the request for restoration within specified periods of time, and for periods of service of more than thirty days, to produce documentation of the service if requested by the employer. For brief calls to duty of less than 30 days, the employee must report back to

work at the end of an 8-hour rest period following completion of service. For periods of duty of 30 days to 180 days, the employee is allowed 14 days back at home before returning to work. For periods of duty of 181 days or more, the employee is allowed to wait up to 90 days before returning to civilian work. If the employee needs medical care as a result of the military service, the employee is given additional time to preserve the civilian job.

Like other employee protection stat-utes, USERRA has a provision that makes it illegal to retaliate against an employee for use of USERRA rights. It is also illegal to retaliate against an employee who helps someone else in the use of USERRA rights. 38 USC § 4311. There are some exceptions to being allowed to USERRA’s right to return to employment, such as where the civilian job was only a temporary position. USERRA has specific provi-sions regarding accumulation of time benefits, discharge from employment after a return from the military, and pension retention.

In addition to USERRA, Indiana has enacted laws to encourage and reward this military service. Indiana Code § 10-16-7-5 requires that state and local governmental agencies allow employees to leave for training or active duty, and to maintain for up to fifteen days the employees’ regular pay while on training or active duty. Because individual em-ployers rarely have to apply the statutory rights of military employees, it is best to consult with an attorney well-versed in employment law if an employee leaves for military duty.

No Permission Slip NeededCONTINUED FROM PAGE 9

If your court needs a consultation regarding statutory rights of military employees, contact

the author at 317-234-3936 or email her at [email protected].


PH

OTO

. kat

hryn

Dol

an

courttimes now has a blog!Our newsletter is now available entirely online in a searchable website with email subscription.

courts.IN.gov/timesIf you like the blog version bet-ter than the magazine, you can unsubscribe from the paper ver-sion by emailing Andrea Rusk at [email protected].

Subscribe to the blog by email or with the RSS reader of your choice.


PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERS

This newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference.

Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204

editorial Board

Lilia g. Judson, Publisher ExEcutivE DirEctor, StatE court aDmin.

David J. Remondini, Managing Editor chiEf DEputy ExEc. Dir., StatE court aDmin.

James F. Maguire, Editor Staff attornEy, StatE court aDmin.

Lindsey Borschel, DesignerWEb coorDinator, StatE court aDmin./Jtac

Mission

Our goal is to foster communications, respond to concerns, and contribute to the spirit and pride that encompasses the work of all members of the judiciary around the state. We welcome your comments, suggestions and news. If you have an article, advertisements, announcement, or particular issue you would like to see in our publication, please contact us by mail or email at [email protected].

contriBUtors

Hon. Barbara Arnold HarcourtSEnior JuDgE/Staff attornEy, inDiana JuDicial cEntEr

Tom CarusilloDirEctor of trial court SErvicES, StatE court aDminiStration

James R. WalkerDirEctor of trial court managEmEnt, StatE court aDminiStration

Brenda RodehefferDirEctor of EmploymEnt laW SErvicES, StatE court aDminiStration

Robert Rath, Esq.DirEctor of appEllatE court tEchnology, StatE court aDminiStration

James F. MaguireStaff attornEy, StatE court aDminiStration

Doyal McLemoreStaff attornEy, StatE court aDminiStration

kathryn Dolanpublic information officEr, inDiana SuprEmE court

Lisa Thompsonprobation SubJEct mattEr ExpErt, StatE court aDminiStration / Jtac

Documents

Indiana Court Times 19.5